It was little fairies flew up there, grabbed the pencil and drug it down to the floor. Now that's an explanation. It does actually explain the data, it just does it in an adhock wy. There's no independent reason to think that there are little fairies and so on. And i think the same way with saying that the something, the principle of non contradiction, just exists is ad ho. There's no reason other than the fact that it makes sense of why we use the principle of non contradiction in allf our thinking. And again, it's just ad ho. So i also think that it's super odd to think that the principle of non contradiction just exists out there. I don't even know how to think of that. People say this kind of thing me philosophers will say this kind of thing, but i just don't know ow to think of that. And so i think the principle of non contradiction is best understood as a property of a mind. That's kind of our only interaction with it, is is as a sort of mental property, or probably better put, as a property of the mind. And so if you have that, then we're kind of led to say, ok, well, if we're trying to explain something that is necessary, eternal, other worldly, non physical, and we need a mind to explain it, you know, you just kind of put those thosese things together, and i think we're just, you know, talking about god at that point. So that under by trying to truly ground logical principles. I think it's extraordinary that were we're led to the divine mind, as you say, it appeals to those who value reason, because they do have to account for that. How much more so if they value that so highly it's right. And it's not something from history where you can argue endlessly over different evidences. There doesn't seem to be a lot of, choicest, you now, options to throw out ther other than the adhock stuff that you're saying it's also with the moral argument. I think the moral argument for god's existence is a very powerful argument as well. A naturalist could deny the existence of moral facts. You no mean, like it, it could be the case that therejs are no moral facts, that we just evolved, these things just evolved, sort of social practices and so on. But that move, i mean, i think that's a bad move there too, obviously, right?